The House Has Passed the Trump-Backed SAVE Act. Here Are 8 Things to Know

The House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE Act, on Thursday morning by a vote of 220-208.

The bill, which received unanimous support from House Republicans along with four Democrats, would make sweeping changes to voter registration, including requiring those signing up to present documents proving U.S. citizenship. But tens of millions of Americans say they don’t have easy access to such documents, and critics say the proposal would dramatically depress voter participation.

The bill now heads to the Senate where it will need bipartisan support to overcome a filibuster.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act was first introduced last year as President Trump and his allies focused on the baseless narrative that noncitizens presented a major threat to the 2024 election.

The current federal voter registration form requires voters to swear — under penalty of perjury — that they are U.S. citizens, and some states take additional steps to verify citizenship. Noncitizens who attempt to vote face steep penalties like jail, fines and deportation. A sweeping  executive order Trump signed last month directs the Election Assistance Commission to change the federal registration form to include a requirement to show proof of citizenship. That directive is now facing multiple legal challenges in federal court.

Backers of the SAVE Act say requiring voters to show citizenship documents is necessary to protect election integrity — though they have yet to provide evidence that instances of illegal voting by noncitizens are anything but incredibly rare.

“They are trying to take something that we all agree on — that only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections — and use that to make it harder for millions of eligible citizens to cast their vote,” Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a video denouncing the bill.

Here are eight things to know about the SAVE Act.

1. The bill was first introduced last year as Republicans focused on noncitizen voting

Ahead of the 2024 election, Trump and his allies repeated the groundless claim that Democrats planned to cheat by encouraging noncitizens to illegally vote. Many political observers and election experts saw the baseless narrative as an attempt to sow doubt about the election results in case Trump lost.

“We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at a news conference introducing the SAVE Act last May. The bill passed the House in July, with five Democrats voting for it, though it languished in the Senate.

No evidence came to light of any plot to encourage noncitizens to vote in the 2024 election, but that didn’t stop Republicans from reintroducing the measure at the start of the 119th Congress.

“American elections belong to American citizens, and the public’s confidence in those elections is the cornerstone of our republic,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said in a January news release.

2. Millions of Americans don’t have easy access to proof-of-citizenship documents

The requirement to show proof of citizenship would apply to new voters as well as existing voters who update their registrations, such as after a move or name change.

But one in 10 voting-age American citizens, or an estimated 21.3 million people, either don’t have a proof-of-citizenship document like a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate, or don’t have easy access to one, according to a 2023 survey (PDF) commissioned by voting rights groups. The survey found people of color are more likely not to have a document proving citizenship.

Obtaining these documents takes time and money (PDF). Only about 43% of Americans have passports, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab. The bill says voters can show an ID that indicates citizenship, but currently only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer IDs that meet that criteria.

Voters who don’t have a citizenship document with a photo, like a passport, would need to show two documents — such as a government-issued photo ID along with a document proving citizenship, like a birth certificate.

“Adding more requirements to the process — especially costly, unnecessary ones that are a sudden and dramatic departure from existing requirements — will depress turnout overall,” said Lauren Kunis, executive director of VoteRiders, a nonpartisan organization that helps people obtain ID to vote.

3. Married women who changed their names would likely face additional requirements

Up to 69 million American women changed their names after they got married and therefore don’t have birth certificates that match their current names, according to an analysis by the progressive Center for American Progress. These women would likely need additional documentation, such as a name change document or marriage certificate, to register to vote.

The center’s Greta Bedekovics told NPR that would unfairly burden the women’s right to vote.

“Every move, every party affiliation change … and these women would be required to go with all of their documentation every single time,” Bedekovics said.

Cleta Mitchell, an advocate for stricter voting requirements who supports the SAVE Act, pushed back against that argument in a post on X.

“Under this nonsensical theory, married women are not capable of bringing the necessary documentation that shows citizenship AND married status,” she wrote.

Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., a SAVE Act co-sponsor, defended the bill in a congressional hearing, saying, “The SAVE Act does have robust protections for married women whose names have changed.” The legislation does not mention married women but says states should come up with processes to accept additional documentation when voters have a discrepancy on their proof-of-citizenship document. Miller’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

4. Voter registration would likely require a visit to a government office

The bill specifies that if someone registers by mail they must present their documents “in person to the office of the appropriate election official” before the voter registration deadline passes (or if they are in a state where voters can register at a polling place, they could show their documents there). That requirement would also “completely upend” third-party voter registration drives that rely on mail forms, said Jonathan Diaz, an attorney with Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for expanded voter access and opposes the SAVE Act (PDF).

The bill does not mention online voter registration, which is an option in most states. Neither Roy or Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., the bill’s other lead sponsor, responded to an NPR inquiry requesting more details.

Some 80 million Americans registered to vote or updated their registrations between the 2020 and 2022 elections, according to data from the Election Assistance Commission (PDF) (EAC). The most common way people registered was through department of motor vehicles offices, but 9% of voters registered to vote by mail, fax or email, and 14% registered online in 2022, according to the EAC.

Requiring voters to show documents in person would be particularly burdensome for rural voters, people who rely on public transit and people who cannot leave work during business hours. In the 30 largest counties by area in the West, voters would have to drive an average of 260 miles to get to their election office, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress. The same analysis found some voters in Alaska and Hawaii could have to fly to get to election offices.

That’s a concern espoused by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat.

“Because of [a voter’s] physical condition or their age or their distance from their county registrar’s office, they just don’t get to vote anymore?” Fontes questioned. “This is a radical shift in the way we consider preserving the voter’s right to vote.”

5. Election officials have concerns about implementation and new criminal penalties

Fontes said the lawmakers who came up with the SAVE Act may have had a noble idea, but the bill as written is deeply flawed.

“It’s going to put a heavy burden on localities and it’s really bad for voters,” Fontes said.

Some Republican state officials have also voiced concerns with how the bill would be implemented.

Michael Siegrist, a Democrat who runs elections as town clerk in Canton, Mich., said it would be necessary for his office to add some evening hours to accommodate voters who work during the day.

And he would have to evaluate people’s birth certificates, which are not uniform. “How am I supposed to know if you forged that birth certificate?” he questioned.

Raising the stakes further, the SAVE Act says election officials can face five years in prison or be sued if they register a noncitizen or a citizen who did not show proof. Siegrist worries he and his colleagues could be prosecuted for human errors or targeted by frivolous lawsuits.

“It creates too much risk, I think, for any reasonable person to want to stay in the profession,” he said.

6. Key details are still up in the air

The bill leaves the thorniest implementation questions up to states to decide with guidance from the EAC. If an applicant does not possess one of the proof-of-citizenship documents described in the bill, it says states should have a process for those applicants to submit additional evidence and for officials to decide if it is sufficient. The bill also says states should come up with accommodations for voters with disabilities.

Voting rights advocates say it is problematic to have gray areas in a bill that also says election officials can face criminal prosecution for missteps.

“Every incentive is for officials to not interpret this law broadly and favorably for voters,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanding voting access and opposes the bill. “Because if they make a mistake, they’re putting their neck out there and themselves on the line.”

7. States would get more access to federal immigration data

The SAVE Act would require states to check voter rolls on an ongoing basis to ensure only U.S. citizens are registered. The bill would make it easier for states to use federal immigration data to do that, which has long been a point of contention between state election officials and the federal government.

Earlier this year, 21 Republican secretaries of state wrote to (PDF) Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ask for improved access to a federal data system called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to help detect noncitizens on their voter rolls.

Some past efforts by states to purge noncitizens from voting rolls, however, have ensnared eligible U.S. citizens due to data inaccuracies.

8. States are considering their own proof-of-citizenship laws

The Republican goals behind the SAVE Act have spread to states as well.

Lawmakers in at least 20 states, including Texas, Florida and South Carolina, have introduced bills this year that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab. New Hampshire passed a proof-of-citizenship law last year.

Kansas and Arizona pioneered such laws — and in both states they’ve been controversial.

In the first few years that Kansas’ law was in effect, more than 30,000 voter registration applicants were blocked due to not providing proof of citizenship — and a state expert conceded most of those people were citizens. In 2018 a federal court declared the state law unconstitutional.

Arizona uses a unique split system in which voters must prove citizenship to participate in state and local elections but not federal elections.

Unlike the protocol outlined in the SAVE Act, many Arizonans are able to fulfill the proof-of-citizenship requirement by writing their driver’s license or state ID number on the voter registration form, since the state’s motor vehicle division tracks citizenship. Still, some 32,000 Arizona voters are barred from voting in state and local elections due to proof-of-citizenship requirements, and an analysis by Votebeat found they are disproportionately young people near college campuses.

In February, a federal appeals court found portions of two 2022 Arizona laws that would have imposed further proof of citizenship requirements to be “unlawful measures of voter suppression.”